Please do not email the editors or writers on this blog with requests for posting material. Those requests will be ignored. Instead, email Sports Law Blog (one word) -at- gmail -dot- com. We do not post advertisements (inculding events), we do not publish guest posts, and we are not interested in link swaps.

Information contained on this site is for informational or amusement purposes only. Nothing written is intended to be
legal advice or legal counsel. All original work is protected by applicable copyright laws. Thank you.

Some media commentaries have suggested that Donald Sterling, if forced to sell the Clippers, would be able to avoid taxes under federal tax law which permits taxpayers to avoid capital gain taxes for "involuntary conversions." In a new article for SI.com, I interview CPA and sports tax expert Robert Raiola, who explains why those commentaries are likely wrong. Here's an excerpt:

"First," Raiola stressed, "the IRS could argue that the sale was
pursuant to bylaws and provisions which Sterling agreed to play by,
rather rules being forced on Sterling."

Articles 13 and 14 of the NBA's constitution detail an intricate
procedure for owners to terminate the interest of another owner in a
team. Sterling and other owners agreed to this procedure. Interestingly,
the termination of Sterling's interest in the Clippers would not
technically constitute a sale of the franchise. Instead, the NBA and the
office of commissioner Adam Silver take control of Sterling's interest.
This means the league would essentially run the Clippers, much like it
ran the New Orleans Hornets after purchasing the team from George Shinn
in 2010. The league would then have the choice of selling the Clippers
at a price Silver deems "reasonable and appropriate." From this lens,
the sale of the Clippers would not be "involuntary": Sterling would have
voluntarily given his blessing to a procedure later used to oust him.
Sterling (and perhaps the NBA) would be subject to capital gain taxes in
this scenario.